Actually, come to think of it, Djikstra [sic] wouldn’t even write any code, because it’s beneath him, but you get the idea.
This is ridiculous. Of course Dijkstra wrote code. He authored the first implementation of an ALGOL 60 compiler, if I'm not mistaken.
Though, technically for Dijkstra writing code was a bit beneath him, as he preferred deriving it using his Guarded Command Language. But the point stands. Dijkstra may have been a bit of a dick, but there's no need to libel a dead man.
I think that he's referring to a quote from Dijkstra: "Computer science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes." [1] Said another way: it's just a joke :-).
His software, of which these are two examples, have low enough error rates that anybody who seriously evaluates today's software would do a double-take.
Comments
Actually, come to think of it, Djikstra [sic] wouldn’t even write any code, because it’s beneath him, but you get the idea.
This is ridiculous. Of course Dijkstra wrote code. He authored the first implementation of an ALGOL 60 compiler, if I'm not mistaken.
Though, technically for Dijkstra writing code was a bit beneath him, as he preferred deriving it using his Guarded Command Language. But the point stands. Dijkstra may have been a bit of a dick, but there's no need to libel a dead man.
I think that he's referring to a quote from Dijkstra: "Computer science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes." [1] Said another way: it's just a joke :-).
[1] http://thinkexist.com/quotation/computer_science_is_no_more_...
That's a nice quote, but if you could create a telescope that created more powerful telescopes then it'd be a better analogy.
Aside: you can, sort-of.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090220172053.ht...
touché
He also wrote THE Multiprogramming system.
His software, of which these are two examples, have low enough error rates that anybody who seriously evaluates today's software would do a double-take.